Conscious thought:

• Semantic understanding,
• Episodic memory

Subconscious thought:

• Skilled actions,
• Tacit understanding,
• Unconscious leanings

Types of thought:

• Propositional language,
• Image based,

Direction:

• Reasoned direction,
• Fluid and tangential,
• Circular and emotion-tagged.  Basic forms of thought Sparrow (2006)

Sparrow (2006) concludes that maybe if we can appreciate the interplay of emotion, imagery and cognition at work it may help us to harness tacit insights more readily. To an extent I agree with him. As I write-up my EBI project, I have been looking for ways of illustrating my insights and I realised that mind-mapping was going to be a very good way of demonstrating and evidencing my thinking and strains of thought.

I have always used mind maps on paper. I generally write things out in my messy notebook and on the backs of envelopes. I find it easy to add to things as I see the pros and cons of each thought in a visual way. I prefer doing my thinking that way first and then sharing it with others afterwards. I am not keen on group brainstorming sessions. I always find them too competitive and stressful. I can’t think straight. The nice thing about sharing a mind-map with someone afterwards is that you can add their perspective more easily without it colouring your initial thoughts. You can use different colours to illustrate someone else’s opinions, and your own different strains of thought.

It is getting easier to mind-map on the go too. After receiving some mind-mapping software recommendations from an Open University LinkedIn Group, I have bought iThoughts for the iPad and downloaded FreeMind for the PC. I find that I use the iPad a lot now for studying as it is so handy when you are on the go. And using a mind-mapping program means it is much easier to edit and rearrange your strains of thought than big pieces of A3 paper and on the back of text books!

Here is an example of my mind-mapping handiwork so far:

Reference:

Sparrow, J (2006). Beyond Sense-making: Emotion, Imagery and Creativity. Creative Management and Development, 82-97

Self-reflection is obviously an individualistic pursuit, and that means that we are limited by our own perceptions. How many of us are truly honest in our critiques of past events? Did something not turn out the right way because of the situation, or me? My seven-year-old son is adept at looking for reasons why he didn’t do anything wrong. There are always creative, situational reasons for why it wasn’t his fault. He is also quick to blame others such as me or his sibling for the issue(s). Of course he is young and immature, but I think there is a part of us that still feels this way as adults – we just internalise these thoughts. As a child, he is more willing to vocalise his worldview more fully. Does that make him more honest, or just untainted by societal views of personal responsibility?

Also, how can you measure the change in your thinking effectively from your own introspection? Yes, you can keep a diary, images, pictures and diagrams, and look back at these past entries and recordings, but isn’t there a strong chance of hindsight bias creeping in? Can we use language well enough to articulate what happened? The rose-tinted specs become ever rosier as we bury the emotional feelings and forget the details. I know I prefer to focus on the future.

One of the reasons why I decided to blog my academic reflective journal was because I could make my reasoning public. I hoped that it would expose me to other people’s views and that some people would comment and interact with my meanderings. To an extent that has happened. But have only like-minded people followed my blog? Could I be unintentionally reinforcing my worldview further? Vince and Reynolds (2008) in their paper presented at a Copenhagen conference suggest that it is a possibility.

But have I blogged enough of my thoughts properly? I know I have held back from writing some posts. I have censured my commentary from fear of looking overly radical, political, defamatory, rude, female, and emotional. This is because I am conscious I’m writing in a public space. I fear an unexpected backlash from what I write because I am new to this medium. I fear that I didn’t explain myself well enough. Was the post factually correct? If I had used a private, paper-based diary would I have been more honest and self-critical? I probably would have just barbecued the pages with the entries I didn’t like. A literal bonfire of the vanities would have occurred.

Even though group reflection complements introspection, I think there is an issue surrounding looking weak in front of others that can hold the learning process back. For example, there is a clip of Sir Fred Goodwin stating at a RBS shareholder meeting (in the BBC documentary “RBS – Inside the Bank that Ran out of Money”), that he was going to be “due diligence light” on the takeover of ABN AMRO because they (meaning him and the board really) had plenty of experience in big acquisitions. He used language in a very depreciating and aggressive manner to rebut the journalist’s questioning of RBS’ strategy. Language even when in an open, public forum can certainly be used as barrier to learning, particularly when it’s used as a sarcastic weapon against other people’s views.

Goodwin’s assumption was they had got it right plenty of times before so why waste money confirming what they tacitly knew already. As recent history shows us, that was a very costly mistake for the British taxpayer. If the scrutiny had occurred, RBS would have realised that ABN AMRO was exposed to plenty of US sub-prime toxic debt and would not have paid such a high price for the business. The due diligence process would have provided better information to the Board, lessening the asymmetry of the transaction, and offered a legitimate exit strategy out of the bid proceedings.

Vince and Reynolds (2008) answer to the weaknesses in the reflective process is to propose a multi-faceted approach to reflective practice. They argue that reflective practice needs to move away from the individual and encompass four types of reflection as illustrated in their matrix below:

An individual wishing to interrogate their perceptions could work through all the areas with others in order to think more openly about the issue and how it related to them and the organisation. On the surface this does seem like a practical approach, but I think it could still be open to group think, individual agendas, and bias if it is not facilitated well.

I imagine a lot of organisations would view it as resource intensive and expensive. In the sense that employees are away from the coal face reflecting on what went wrong instead of focusing on future wins. In my experience, team building days, personal development/training budgets, and meetings are viewed as unnecessary luxuries when budgets are being squeezed. Whether this is the right approach in the long run is irrelevant if organisations measure themselves and employees on quarterly success.

References:

Vince, R., & Reynolds, M. (2008). Organizing Reflective Practice Organization Learning, Knowledge and Capabilities Conference (April 28 – 30 )

She cites Bardwick’s (1986) three types of career plateau workers in the article. Those being structural, content, and personal. Structural relates to limited opportunities for career development within an organisation. Content plateau is when an employee has mastered their job and needs further stimulation. Personal plateau, probably the most dangerous of all, is when both work and non-work activities are not stimulating for an individual at all.

Duffy (2000) suggests that chaos theory can help explain an individual’s career-plateau journey because there are usually trigger points (an urgent awareness that change must occur). During this time, the individual can experience much uncertainty, unpredictability, and ambiguity. Despite this chaos, order is found and arises out of it as the individual finds ways of creating change whilst a self-organising process usually takes hold through the transition. A new way of knowing emerges.

I can certainly empathise with this description. My MBA journey was triggered by a combination of factors. I had added to my family and could not envisage juggling both full-time work and family responsibilities in a fast-paced environment. My husband was, and still is, travelling abroad a lot which sometimes makes family-life unpredictable. I had also accumulated more than ten years of work experience so it felt like the time was right to explore more academic options. The MBA definitely fitted the bill as I felt it may also open the door to different work opportunities in the future. And so far, against all that chaos at the time, it seems like I made the right call by instigating change. So far, I think I have developed better analytical thinking skills in the last two years of study and a much broader management outlook.

References

Bardwick,J.M. (1986). The Plateauing Trap: How to avoid it in your career…and in your life American Management Association

Duffy, J. A. (2000). The Application of Chaos Theory to the Career-Plateaued Worker Employment Counseling, 37 (December), 229-236

Image via Wikipedia

Continuing on with my research quest for personal development action, I came across an article about Positive Organisational Scholarship (POS) and the idea of the Reflected Best Self (RBS). The premise of the research is that you should stop focussing too much on your weaknesses and learn about what you do well. Only then can you find a fulfilling role that makes the most of your unique talents.

The researchers don’t discount that negative feedback has a place in your own reflections about your behaviour. But they stress that we can be too caught up in what we don’t do well that we forget about what comes effortlessly. It is claimed that people remember one positive emotional memory for every four negative ones. Thus, people respond better to praise rather than criticism. As a parent of two young boys, I have been trying myself to reinforce good behaviour and emotions through positive commentary and less negative feedback. It is hard work, however, when they do things, particularly dangerous things, which try your patience! I think it can be hard to dish out positive feedback generally. I think we can often critique people based on an emotional reaction that has not been fully thought through, particularly to people who are very close to us.

Morgan Roberts et al (2005) claim that RBS helps you to discover your “best possible self” though requesting feedback from a wide-range of people on what you do best. The feedback can come from family members, ex work colleagues, current work colleagues, alumni or volunteer positions, but they must back up the commentary with examples of the value you added. The researchers claim that by doing this you can develop a plan for more effective personal development action. It is not meant to be an egotistical, navel-gazing exercise.

Once you have gathered your feedback, step two is to find common themes and analyse them. Think about what the examples say about you and how they related to your life/work. Did you realise that you were good at these things? Do these traits make you happy?

Step three is to write your own self-portrait that summarises this information. It should be an insightful narrative beginning with the phrase: “When I am at my best, I…” By working out your best “possible self”, we are more likely to make positive changes in our lives.

The last step is to redesign your job. I find this step quite difficult to accept. I don’t think many people will have the luxury of being able to change their current job to what they do best. Granted, I understand in theory that it is obviously better for you to highlight your strengths and take on projects that maximise your input. But in reality, I doubt very much that a lot of people can do this.

For example, factory workers, self-employed people, and non-professionally qualified staff may have a hard time changing roles or self-determining their tasks. The researchers argue that most jobs have a degree of flexibility about them and the trick is to work within the confines of the system so it works better for you.

Also, if a complete mismatch between your strengths and the role you perform occurs, how many people will be able to leave and start afresh in a new position or industry? It can take a long time to find the best fit role, and cynically speaking, how many companies actually live up to the expectations they sell in the interview process?

Nevertheless, I plan on trying this technique out and seeing how my friends, MBA colleagues, and family perceive me. Let’s hope my ego can take it!

Reference:

Roberts LM, Spreitzer G, Dutton J, Quinn R, Heaphy E, & Barker B (2005). How to play to your strengths. Harvard business review, 83 (1) PMID: 15697115

Ibarra and Hunter (2007) say that networking is about “creating a fabric of personal contacts that will provide support, feedback, insight, resources, and information”. But many managers, from their study of 30 managers, find networking insincere or manipulative and fail to utilise their contacts effectively. Being time-poor is also an issue.

Singleton and Tarnowska (2010) answer to this is that you should learn to cultivate your relationships whether they be from work, school, college, home or clubs. Probe, ask questions, be interested and share information. Keep in touch, and offer relevant information such as thought-provoking articles, and tips, as and when appropriate. There is no point just collecting more and more business cards and LinkedIn contacts if you are not willing to make an effort to build on your relationships.

There is also the issue of working out how to manage your networks. Ibarra and Hunter (2007) suggest that there are three main types of networking: operational, personal and strategic. Operational networking is about good working relationships both internal, such as peers and superiors, and external, such as suppliers and customers, to the organisation. These connections are relatively straight-forward in the sense that everyone is connected to the organisational network so there are obvious synergies in working with one another even if the relationships are not always easy.

Personal networking encompasses connections made through professional associations, clubs, personal interest groups and alumni. These connections are made out of choice. Ibarra and Hunter (2007) state that this group provides important referrals, information and development support. It can also create a good basis for strategic networking. The issues with personal networking are that you are most likely surrounded by like-minded people who you share personal interests with. Therefore it becomes difficult to work out how valuable this type of network is. It can also reinforce mind-sets.

Strategic networking, however, is about creating inside-outside links for future business and functional purposes. These types of connections can be political, but if you are not in touch with the “bigger picture” and aspire to leadership roles, you can often lose out to someone who is. Strategic networking also requires a lot of time and dedication. It is often one of the reasons given for why women rarely reach a board-level position in an organisation. Balancing the demands of family-life with organisational development is no easy task for anyone.

For the novice networker, Ibarra and Hunter (2007) suggest finding a networking role model and watch and learn. Maybe find an outside interest, say the cinema, and find ways of encouraging it within the organisation and with clients in order to find time to interact with them. Re-allocate your time and workload effectively to find time to network and connect. Nurture your connections. The benefits of networking take time and need constant gardening. In time, it will bloom.

References:

Ibarra H, & Hunter M (2007). How leaders create and use networks. Harvard business review, 85 (1) PMID: 17286073

Singleton, T., & Tarnowska, I. (2010). Take Networking to the Next Level Strategic Finance (February), 19-20

Ibarra (2002) believes that instead of wasting too much time planning, analysing, and researching career change options, you should take action first and work through the results iteratively afterwards. Through an action-oriented approach you can adapt, regroup your thoughts, and reorient your pathway from real-life experience. This means that your career change is never a pipedream that is too risky to implement because you are actively pursuing change. You have real-life information on which to base a decision.

It’s also a good way of exploring our many different “selves”. Ibarra quotes research from cognitive psychologist Hazel Markus (1986), Possible Selves, which explores the idea of multiple adult identities formed in the present, past and future. Ibarra argues that her own research reflects this idea that we have many identities. Her career-change subjects identified job opportunities that arose from volunteer opportunities, married life, and networks outside of the workplace. Some subjects had wild ideas of becoming tour guides or scuba instructors whilst others found identities in the non-profit sector. Ibarra does not believe that we can find our one “true self” and that too much introspection will amount to nothing more than daydreams. It’s action that counts.

The approach Ibarra (2002) recommends in anyone’s career change action is called “the practice of working identity”. This is a practice of applying effort to reshape our identity. This skill is one that Ibarra (2002) says can be learned by anyone seeking professional renewal. She calls this the “test and learn” model of change.  Ibarra advocates three main ways of a working through a career-change process: crafting experiments, shifting connections, and making sense of your journey.

Through crafting experiments we can test out new activities and professional roles in small manageable ways. Find an opportunity to learn a new identity through a related work project, a volunteer option, further training, or by freelancing. Concrete experience is what is required if you really want to move in a new direction.

Although feedback is a good way of gaining insight into your personality and ways of working, in practice, people who are too close to us have their own biases and agendas. They can have a vested interest in keeping the status quo. Networking away from our friends and family and current workplace, shifting connections, can provide a necessary new perspective on what is achievable. It may even open you up to new possibilities that have not been considered.

Making sense of your change requires a narrative to explain your new direction. What triggered your epiphany? What were the defining moments? How did you get there? By creating a personal narrative, we can explain our new direction to others and believe in it ourselves. It also solidifies the action taken and defines your purpose.

Ibarra (2002) concludes that those that successfully reoriented their career pathway took smaller steps that allowed them to learn from experience. Nobody in her research followed a linear pathway. She states that most career transition takes three years and it must start with action.

Overall, Ibarra has given me lots to think about. Despite her research being based on only 39 career-change case studies, I think she has a point in stating that you must actually take action if you want to change. It links very nicely with Kolb and Fry (1975) experiential learning cycle, which is about learning from action, reflecting, and then implementing further change.

So far, I have already filled in an online career inventory with CASCAiD, http://www.cascaid.co.uk/ . That has given me a top 20 list of roles that it claims I am suitable for, some of the roles I have already thought were possible. I also have an MBTI profile. And I also have various opportunities to network with others either through volunteer opportunities or networking groups. I guess it is time to start taking action!

References

Ibarra H (2002). How to stay stuck in the wrong career. Harvard business review, 80 (12) PMID: 12510536

Kolb, D.A., & Fry, R. (1975). Towards an Applied Theory of experiential learning Theories of Group Processes, 33-57

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible Selves American Psychologist, 42 (9), 954-969

Ibarra and Lineback (2005) in their article “What’s your Story?” have interesting points to make about trying to link up your past career/life to the new direction you seek. They point out that many people struggle to explain what they want to do next and why a change makes sense. People fear looking flaky, incoherent and indecisive. Because of this, people stick to a factual career narrative which does not explain their long-term goals or aspirations well enough for others to “Buy-in” to their desired change.

This is why Ibarra and Lineback say it’s important to craft a good story for each of the career avenues you wish to pursue. By linking your present and future goals to your past career history, you can help others to understand how you got to the juncture you are at today and where you want to journey onto now. Being able to make sense of the turning point that led you to want to change your career direction is an important step to convincing ourselves, and others, that the career change is meaningful and not fleeting.  Your story must be coherent and persuasive, if you hope to redirect your career trajectory.

Thankfully, Ibarra and Lineback do provide some useful action points that they believe can help a professional change career direction, those being:

• Link your change reasons to your skillset e.g “I found that I was good at X…”
• Mention multiple reasons (personal & professional) for why you want change;
• Make sure you have reasons for why you didn’t pursue your current goals in your past;
• Reframe your past in light of your current/future goals;
• Choose a story form that lends itself to your tale of reinvention such as a maturing view of the world or learning from self-reflection/educational insight;

They also suggest that in the early stages of your career transition, it is important to identify and actively consider multiple career pathways. This is something that I’ve already started doing. I’m trying to map my career options with a list of known pros and cons for each pathway.

Furthermore, once you have settled on the career routes that you wish to pursue, it is important to discuss them with different types of audiences such as friends, family, co-workers or acquaintances. The more feedback you get, the more likely you are to settle on the right career path for you and the one that is the most achievable.

Reference:

Ibarra H, & Lineback K (2005). What’s your story? Harvard business review, 83 (1), 64-71 PMID: 15697114

Drucker argues that it is increasingly important that knowledge workers learn to develop themselves so they can be more effective. Work on remedying your bad habits and develop good inter-personal skills to gain the cooperation of your work colleagues. Also, as Pareto’s Principle states, only work on what matters. Direct the 80% of your action towards the 20% that matters to your learning and development. There is no point wasting time on assignments and tasks that will only result in mediocrity and not star performance.

Another area to focus on is how you perform. How do you learn and work in your job? Are you a reader or listener or writer? Personally speaking, I see myself as a writer and talker. I make notes on paper and on my text books. Any book that I read I have to annotate with my own marks and diagrams. I find I remember more by writing things down and then discussing the ideas with others for alternative viewpoints. It is also important to work out whether you work best with others or alone; as a leader or deputy; or better in a large or small organisation. Knowing where you belong is extremely important.

Furthermore understanding your personal values system can help you perform much more effectively. Your personal values need to be compatible with those of the organisation you work for otherwise you will only become frustrated. Drucker believes that successful careers develop when people are prepared for opportunities because they know their strengths, their method of work, and their values. Only then can a person make a difference to themselves and the organisation they belong to.

In making a difference, the results need to be SMART and meaningful. The results should also be visible and measurable. From this standpoint, a course of action will develop. Another important consideration is the impact others may have on your objectives. Knowing your co-workers and their strengths and weaknesses can help you work more effectively with them. It is also important to communicate well. Tell people what you are doing and what you are hoping to achieve. Organisations are made up of people; it’s your responsibility and duty to gain the cooperation and trust of your co-workers through developing good working relationships.

Overall, I found Drucker’s advice actionable and I intend to audit my strengths and embark on more feedback analysis both on a personal level and with others. I also think it is important that I explore my value system so that I can understand where I fit into the world following the completion of my Masters. However, Drucker’s advice is based on anecdotal evidence in this article and not backed-up by hard statistical “facts”. This is slightly worrying for me as acting on someone’s own anecdotal evidence may not be appropriate for my needs or situation.

Obviously I accept that Drucker had an illustrious academic career, but most of what he says seems like common sense rather than “proved” by research. On one hand I believe that as individuals we have choices and responsibilities, but depending on your “professional” career, some people have more choice than others. For instance, I’m fortunate to be able to study full-time and spend time writing my blog and reflecting on my learning. Many people don’t have the luxury of being able to undertake postgraduate study, nor have enough autonomy in their role to direct what assignments they will take on.

I remember an interview situation with a prospective employer where I was asked for an example of a situation in which I turned something negative into a positive result through personal leadership. After I ran through my own anecdotal situation, I was then told that organisations can’t have too many leaders insinuating that too much personal autonomy would not work at that organisation! If Drucker is right that knowledge workers have to manage themselves and behave like their own Chief Executive Officer, personal goals are likely to conflict with the goals of the organisation and other work colleagues. How one balances this dichotomy is no doubt an art rather than a science in my view.

References:
Drucker, F. P. (1999). Managing Oneself Harvard Business Review (March)

Image via Wikipedia

I experienced a great OU Res-School at Lane End Conference Centre, Buckinghamshire, over the weekend just gone. I caught-up with fellow B830 tutor group members and some previous module colleagues. I was a member of Richard’s tutor group and also a member of a randomly generated learning set group formed to work through all our EBI proposals.

This EBI bullet-proofing process required us to map who we perceived as main EBI stakeholders on our power-interest matrices, define our EBI with the key issues outlined, and explore potential areas of theory relevant to our chosen EBIs.

I have decided to focus on a personal and very individually-focused EBI. I feel that I need to analyse my skill set, family commitments and employment opportunities in detail and work out the best career pathway for me. The best way of doing this, I believe, is to audit my work experience and competencies with a career coach. I have already had one session with David at C2 Careers and I already have some action points to work on following the meeting.

At the moment, I feel a bit like Dorothy traversing the Yellow Brick road to the Emerald City in the Wizard of Oz. But instead of one road to Emerald City I have numerous choices and crossroads! I recognise that too much choice is a nice problem to have, but it complicates the process markedly. It doesn’t help when everyone has an opinion on the best way forward depending on their interest in my background and skillset.

Right now I feel that I need to follow a very divergent process in order to explore and narrow down my choices. I can see this process of self-discovery being extremely iterative as I work through my options and converge on a suitable pathway. I think I’m likely to follow the Buffalo 6-stage creative problem solving process during my EBI. I already feel that I am at stage two of the divergent fact-finding part: discovering suitable work structures and work opportunities for me following the completion of the OU MBA.

As part of my career audit I think that I can use the CV Plus method mentioned by Dealtry (2004) in his article The Savvy Learner. He believes that existing and prospective managers need to establish where they are in their learning-to-learn journey. He argues that CV Plus is a diagnostic self-appraisal tool that provides a framework of six core areas (Family, Location, Education, Work Experience, Social Activity, and Political Opinion) in order to help an individual work through their past learning experience and ideology. By mapping the learning progress from birth to adulthood, without thinking of a particular job or industry influencing the self-analysis, it is hoped that an individual can understand how they arrived at their present career path.

Dealtry believes it is important that an individual knows three main things about themselves in relation to their learning journey: their learning styles profile, learning diagnostics and team profile. He states that knowing the learning self leads to the recognition in differences in behaviour in those people we work with and live with. But this insight needs to be managed within the context of the influences that affect an individual’s learning development such as job context, culture, methods of learning etc and their own strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.

Fundamentally, Dealtry argues that an individual’s learning-to-learn journey is about managing all the stakeholders involved in the learning experience: the learner, the organisation, and also work colleagues, family and learning providers. We do not learn in a vacuum. Furthermore, how an individual shifts his/her world-view paradigm after discovering new ideas can markedly impact others and the way they are perceived by them. It’s important to recognise the changes in you and the positive or negative impact it may have on your personal or work relationships.

References:

Dealtry R. (2004) “Professional Practice: The Savvy Learner”, The Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol.16 no 1, Emerald Group Publishing, pp 101-109.

They advocate using a three-step process. Step one is to conduct a confidential internal employee network questionnaire to discover who trusts whom, and who advises whom on technical matters. Step two is to cross-reference the answers and create a map based on the consensus of the group. The third step is to process the information using computer-aided mapping software.

In the David Leers case study quoted in the article, Leers discovers after implementing his own organisational trust and advice network survey that the wrong employees are leading the cross-boundary taskforce. The workgroup fails to achieve anything of note because it’s lacking the right people managers. Leers realises that technical expertise does not necessarily mean that an employee has the right diplomatic skills to negotiate organisational change with other employees. And in Leers’ situation, good people management skills were crucial to the success of his strategic workgroup. Once Leers reorganises the taskforce, the team is more successful, and his longer term strategic growth plans for the business started to look more promising.

In theory, mapping an organisation’s internal network seems very pragmatic, but I’m slightly apprehensive about how successful one would actually be in gathering the data. There is a risk that employees would not volunteer the information, they may make it up, or may even feel exploited by the whole process. I don’t think it is very scalable either. A large organisation spanning many countries would probably find this very difficult to undertake whilst cultural issues may influence the results.

Overall, I think that Krackhardt and Hanson are wise to point out that hierarchical job titles do not necessarily mean that an employee has the skills necessarily to work across internal boundaries and functions. It’s also illustrates that few people adhere rigidly to the remit of their job descriptions, particularly in professional services. Also, just because an employee has manager in their title does not necessarily mean that they are able to manage people who don’t report directly to them. I imagine that as more organisations abandon formal job titles and opt for general labels such as associate or executive, developing good powers of persuasion as an employee are probably more important than ever.

References:

Krackhardt, D. and Hanson, J. R. (1993) “Informal Networks; The company behind the Chart”, Harvard Business Review, Harvard Business School Publishing, pp104-11 cited in Henry, J. (2006) 3rd Edition, “Creative Management and Development”, Open University, Sage Publications, pp 191-196.